ALF V1

Banning asbestos is a no brainer, right? The versatile, indestructible insulation and construction material was the "miracle substance" of the early 20th century and is now infamous as a cancerous scourge. Most people know asbestos, with its tiny indestructible fibres, is a carcinogen. It is rigidly controlled in Alberta workplaces, and has been virtually removed as a construction building block in Canada. But someone seems to have forgotten to tell the Canadian government.

At an international conference last month, the Canadian government led a charge to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being added to a list of controlled dangerous substances. Chrysotile (or white) asbestos is the most common form of the fibre.

The conference where Canada played such a nefarious role was the most recent gathering of the Rotterdam Convention, an international environmental treaty signed by over 110 countries to regulate the trade and use of certain hazardous substances, such as pesticides and other toxic industrial chemicals.

The purpose of the Rotterdam Convention is quite modest. Passed in 1998, its job is to "promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts" among nations in the area of hazardous chemicals and to "contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals." It doesn't ban anything; it simply sets up rules to ensure buyers of certain chemicals are aware of the dangers associated with it. It is about the right-to-know.

Apparently even this is too much for Canada. In response to a motion to add white asbestos to the list of restricted substances requiring information-sharing, Canada cried foul. It led a campaign to defeat the motion. Because Rotterdam requires consensus among signing parties to enact a motion, Canada's effort was successful, despite only garnering the support of five other nations - Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Peru, India and Ukraine. The motion was deferred to a future conference. And white asbestos continues to cross borders without control.

Before you trot out your curses of Stephen Harper and his band of terrible Tories, take note that this was the third time Canada has deep-sixed a motion to add white asbestos to the controlled list. The last two times occurred under Liberal governments in 2002 and 2004. In fact, the Liberal government launched a WTO challenge against France in 1997 after it passed a law banning asbestos within its borders.

But if asbestos is so awful - and it is - why is the Canadian government so intent to defend its continued trade? After all, we rarely use the stuff ourselves these days.

The answer lies in the narrow self-interest of a dying, regionally concentrated industry. Canada still mines asbestos - about 250 000 tonnes of the stuff a year. The vast majority of it comes out of three mines in Quebec's Eastern Townships. The Canadian government estimates it is worth about $200 million in trade a year. The industry employs about 1 600 workers in Quebec. Canada holds the dubious honour of being the world's largest exporter of asbestos.

The appalling part is that 96 per cent of what we produce is exported to developing regions such as Africa and SouthEast Asia. We refuse to use asbestos in our own homes and workplaces but happily ship it abroad to countries with lax safety and environmental standards, putting workers and citizens in those countries at risk of cancer and other asbestos-related diseases. In my eyes, this makes us hypocrites.

More than 30 countries have banned asbestos completely, including most of the EU nations. Why? Because they know that over one million people contract asbestos-related disease each year. They know that asbestosis and mesothelioma are among the more painful and vicious cancers. They know that there is no safe way to handle asbestos. And they know there are plenty of safer alternatives available.

What they know is something our government refuses to recognize, namely that asbestos needs to disappear from human activity. We don't need it, and we definitely can't afford to keep using it.

But our government continues to be a pariah on the world stage for its defence of asbestos. It does so because it knows it will pay no political price at home. Who knows about the Rotterdam Convention? Who follows the actions of diplomats at some conference in Europe? Who cares that our hands are coated in a deadly white powder?

They do it because the corporate interests defending asbestos speak louder than Canadian citizens who care about protecting health and environment.

It's not enough to shake our heads and wag our fingers at Tory and Liberal politicians - although that is a good start. We all share in the shame that is our track record on asbestos.

Canadians should be embarrassed and offended by the position our government has taken. But we should also be ashamed we have not spoken more vociferously for an end to such indefensible actions. We should realize we are remiss for not demanding a domestic ban on asbestos in Canada.

I am angry at successive Conservative and Liberal governments for condemning thousands of workers to painful deaths at the hands of Canadian-produced asbestos. And I am hopeful that Canadians will soon awake to this hypocrisy and demand a more ethical approach to this crucial issue.

November 2006
by Jason Foster
AFL Staff

At its October meeting, the Executive Council of the Alberta Federation of Labour approved a new Policy Statement on Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing that clarifies labour's position on the issue and takes into consideration recent court decisions which have shifted the ground on mandatory testing.

AFL President Gil McGowan indicates the AFL's last policy was passed in 2001. "It was time for an update. We kept our core principles opposing mandatory drug testing, but added in a more detailed analysis of the legal status of testing.

"In short, the policy clearly opposes all forms of employer-imposed drug and alcohol testing," says McGowan. "It does so for two reasons. First, it is an unreasonable invasion of workers' privacy and in many cases contravenes the human rights code."

"Second, quite frankly drug and alcohol testing doesn't work. It does not make workplaces safer," says McGowan. He notes the Alberta government's own research shows that testing cannot be shown to reduce work-related injuries.

"Our belief is that employers are using drug testing as a method of exerting control over their workforce, not to make workplaces safer."

The Policy offers information and alternatives to workers and unions who are facing employers trying to impose mandatory testing. "Our policy statement is urging our affiliate unions to push back against employers trying to implement invasive and possibly illegal testing programs."

Recent court decisions, such as Chiasson and Jacknife/Collins, have further restricted what testing programs are allowed under law. "We intend on informing our members fully of what employers can and cannot do legally. And rest assured, if an employer tries to implement something of dubious legality, our affiliates will fight hard against it," observes McGowan.

Specifically, the policy also opposes the use of pre-employment testing, random testing and post-incident testing. It also puts the AFL on record opposing the so-called "Canadian Model" which is widespread in the construction industry.

Finally, the policy offers practical alternatives to testing which are shown to be more effective at making workplaces safer without contravening workers' rights.

"We know the issue of drug testing is huge issue that is not going away. We want to make sure workers are fully informed of their rights, and fully prepared to defend themselves," McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

For more Information:

Gil McGowan, President   Tel: (780) 483-3021         Cell: (780) 218-9888
Jason Foster, Director of Policy Analysis Tel: (780) 483-3021

The labour movement has escalated its efforts to resolve the Palace Casino strike by sending letters to 300 charities who are scheduled to volunteer for casinos at Palace in the coming months. The letter, sent on October 13 from Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan, asks charities to contact the Minister of Gaming and the casino owners to urge them to settle the dispute quickly. It also asks them to consider canceling their scheduled casino if the strike continues.

"The intransigence of Palace Casino and the government's willful neglect of this issue have put charities in a difficult spot," notes McGowan. "Either they make their volunteers cross a picket line, or they forfeit their coveted casino spot. It is not a great situation. It is in everyone's interest to end this strike quickly."

"Our letter is to acknowledge the difficult spot they are in, and ask them to be a part of resolving the conflict as quickly as possible," says McGowan. "We are asking them to put pressure on the casino owners to come back to the negotiating table. We are also asking them to demand that the government take a more active role in resolving this conflict."

"We want to start a conversation with the charities about why the workers are on strike, and why it is important they respect the picket line."

The letter also outlines options available to charities if they choose to not cross the picket line. It indicates that if they cancel ahead of time, the government will attempt to reschedule the casino as soon as possible. However, if they fail to produce the required number of volunteers at the time of their casino, they risk forfeiting their spot in the rotation.

"The government could assist the charities by guaranteeing that any charity that chooses to cancel their casino due to the strike would be guaranteed a replacement once the dispute is resolved. So far they refuse to do that, which makes them part of the problem," McGowan observes.

McGowan notes that business at the casino is down substantially. "The strike is having a serious effect on the casino's business. They are losing tens of thousands of dollars a day due to lost customers. It is in Palace's financial interest to agree to a fair deal and end this strike. Why they don't is beyond comprehension."

McGowan is hopeful the charities will appreciate the information in the letter and will contact the union to discuss how the workers and the charities can work together to end the strike. "These charities do important work for the community. They are decent people. Hopefully the combined efforts of the workers and these volunteers will bring the government and Palace Casino to their senses."

- 30 -

For More Information

Gil McGowan, AFL President      Cell: (780) 218-9888

When I heard the news last week that several well-known union leaders and labour organizations were encouraging their members to get involved in the Tory leadership race - and in some cases, actually buying party memberships for them - my most prominent emotion was frustration.

What a sad commentary, I thought, on the state of democracy in our province: that people who are obviously not Conservatives feel the only way they can influence public policy is by joining a party they don't really believe in.

Don't get me wrong. On one level, I understand why people like Alberta Teachers Association President Frank Bruseker and leaders from the Alberta Building Trades Council did what they did.

After all, the Alberta Conservatives have been in power for more than 35 years and, if recent polls are any indication, there's every reason to believe they will win the next election as well.

So, if these are the people most likely to form and lead the next provincial government, why not cozy up to them?

But, from where I sit, there are at least two major problems with this line of thinking - the first being the not-so-subtle acceptance of the notion that Alberta is one-party state.

The phrase "one-party state" may make some people feel uncomfortable - but just look at the record.

Despite all the trappings of democracy (parties, elections, Question Period etc.) Alberta has for generations been missing one of the key ingredients for a true democracy - and that ingredient is change.

During the long reign of the Alberta Tories, provinces like B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have seen their government change multiple times.

Change and democracy go hand in hand. When you lose the hope for change I would argue you lose democracy itself.

Of course Conservatives and their supporters don't see it that way.

As the leader of Alberta's largest association of unions, I too have been courted by Tory leadership hopefuls who have pedalled what I refer to as the "Borg Argument."

"Alberta has always been and always will be Conservative," they whisper. "The only real democracy that exists in the province is democracy within our party. If you want to be heard, join us. Resistance is futile."

Well, I for one am not prepared to accept the notion that it's politically futile to exercise my democratic rights outside the Tory tent. And, to take the Star Trek metaphor one step further, I'm not prepared to accept that the only way you can make a difference in this province is to be "assimilated" into the Conservative Collective.

Unfortunately, whether they intended to do it or not, that's the message that Bruseker and the others union leaders are sending both to their members and the general public.

By joining the Tories, they are saying, at least implicitly, that resistance IS futile; and, as a result, they're making it more likely that the Tory one-party state will hang on, no matter how unhealthy that might be for our democracy.

That brings me to the second reason why I won't be using my office to encourage involvement in the Tory leadership race.

While I whole-heartedly support and defend the right of individual union members to belong to the parties of their choice, I oppose giving institutional support to the Conservatives because they are NOT really the "big tent" party they're pretending to be.

Union members should not forget that this is the same party and the same government that rolled back public sector wages in the mid-90s and imposed hiring freezes on nurses, teachers and other public servants - freezes that are now coming back to haunt us all.

It is the same government that has repeatedly thumbed its nose at public opinion and pushed the envelope on private health care. It is the same government that has consistently under-funded our schools, municipalities and post-secondary institutions; and which has left a legacy of huge infrastructure, social and environmental deficits.

It is also the same government that decided to essentially give our oil sands away at a ridiculous royalty rate of one penny on the dollar; and which continues to turn a blind on energy companies that want to mine our oil sands but have no intention of upgrading it or refining it here.

Finally, this is the same government that created and maintains the most restrictive, pro-employer labour laws in the country; and which has not be afraid to use its legislative power to intervene and tip the playing field even more dramatically in favour of employers - as they did in the case of the Horizon oil sands project near Fort McMurray.

After looking at this sorry record - and recognizing that five of the nine contenders for the Tory leadership were Klein-era cabinet ministers - I would argue that the Tories simply haven't earned the support of working people in this province.

Sure, we can wine and dine candidates. We can write cheques to the party. We might even be able to extract a few vague promises.

But, our money will never be more than a drop in the bucket compared to the flood coming from high-rolling corporate donors. And even more importantly, money and memberships will never trump the deeply ingrained ideological distrust most Conservatives feel for unions and the issues we care about.

At the end of the day that's the most frustrating part of this whole affair: the Tories know who they are - and they're not a "worker-friendly" party. There is no reason to believe that a few memberships sold here and there will make the leopard change its spots.

Calgary Herald, Sat Oct 21, 2006, Page A29
By Gil McGowan, AFL President

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Statement (Oct 2006)

The issue of drug and alcohol testing in the workplace is an evolving area of employment law. It is also a fundamental issue of worker rights versus limit to employer control over its employees. ... Given the changing nature of the issue, the AFL felt it was time to update its policy statement from Convention 2001.

Albertans deserve a larger return on their vast oilsands, a provincial committee seeking input on how to best develop the resource heard Wednesday.

The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development argued that it's time for the province to revamp its royalty rates for oilsands even though oil companies warn changes could mean that Alberta could lose out on projects.

"Government leaders need to take a long-term approach to resource development and recognize that despite threats to reduce investments in the oilsands if fiscal policies are changed they are unlikely to walk away from the second largest oil deposit in the world," said Pembina spokeswoman Amy Taylor at the first day of hearings in Calgary.

The 19-member committee has been travelling the province to hear from Albertans on oilsands development. The hearing continues today at MacEwan Conference Centre at the University of Calgary before heading to northern communities next week.

A report on the panel's findings is expected in November.

The institute is advocating an immediate increase in royalty rates for new oilsands projects and a phase-in for existing ones. Currently operators pay one per cent of gross revenues until capital costs and a return allowance are recovered, after which the rate jumps to 25 per cent.

Originally designed to spur oilsands investment, Taylor said the royalty program should be reviewed with public input considering the level of investment currently being poured into the projects in Northern Alberta, where production is slated to triple to three million barrels a day by 2015.

"Oilsands are no longer considered a marginal resource," she said.

Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, likened the oilsands royalty regime to "putting the economy on steroids."

He said the province will continue to lose out on revenue as project costs continue to soar due to high demand for labour and equipment.

"The more expensive a project gets the longer we have to forego revenues," he said.

Other speakers who registered for a 15-minute opportunity to address the community said the government should slow development to curb the growth of carbon dioxide emissions and other negative environmental impacts.

Industry representatives also raised the point that the province must invest in the communities to help support the growth in the oilsands industry. Bill Clapperton, a vice-president with Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., said oilsands operators do their part by providing revenue through royalties and taxes as well as more jobs for the economy.

"The needs for infrastructure in the municipality are urgent in municipality of Wood Buffalo and Canadian Natural believes the government must maintain their traditional as helper and operator of public infrastructure," he said.

Calgary Herald, Thurs Sept 28 2006
Byline: Lisa Schmidt

The Information and Privacy Commissioner today ordered the Alberta Labour Relations Board (LRB) to release approximately 200 records to the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) pertaining to the drafting of the controversial Bill 27, which restructured health care labour relations and stripped health care workers of many rights. The Commissioner also chastised the LRB for "failing" in its duty to assist an applicant under the Freedom of Information Act. (Read Commissioner's Decision)

The AFL has been trying since June, 2003 to access records revealing communications between key officials at the LRB and government officials regarding the drafting of Bill 27. The Commissioner's order is the latest revelation in an ongoing scandal where LRB officials may have breached their role as independent arbiters of labour law by assisting in the drafting of government legislation.

Last November, two memos were accidentally released which revealed significant communication about the content of Bill 27. At the time the Privacy Commissioner and the LRB took the AFL to court to try to get back the documents. The Court denied the request.

"This is a significant victory," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "For three years the LRB has stonewalled and hidden behind a veil of secrecy around Bill 27. We are pleased the Privacy Commissioner recognized the important right to access these documents."

There are two parts to the Commissioner's ruling. First, he ruled the LRB must disclose portions of documents that reveal who was involved in creating, drafting, editing or commenting on legislation, as well as the dates of those communications. Second, he ruled the LRB failed in its legal duties under FOIP by issuing an incomplete response and by delaying the release of other documents.

"We are hopeful that the nature of the documents released - including dates and names - will be enough to finally answer our questions about the LRB's involvement in the creation of Bill 27," says McGowan. "Answers that are long overdue."

Under the terms of the Order, the LRB has 50 days to release the documents to the AFL or to decide to file a judicial review. McGowan hopes that the LRB finally chooses to be transparent. "Many of the documents in question, including some not disclosed today, are in the discretion of the LRB to release voluntarily. The LRB should clear the air in this matter once and for all by releasing all the records in its discretion."

McGowan also called on the LRB to adopt the recommendations of the Sossin Report, released by the AFL in June, as a method to preventing future scandals.

"It is particularly ironic that this order comes down in the middle of the government's Right to Know Week. Clearly as far as the LRB is concerned, the right to know is on a need to know basis." McGowan concluded.

- 30 -

For More Information:
Gil McGowan, AFL President      Cell: (780) 218-9888
Jason Foster, AFL Director of Policy Analysis    Tel: (780) 483-3021

Backgrounder: Bill 27 and Freedom of Information

September 27, 2006

• In March, 2003 the Government of Alberta introduced and passed Bill 27, the awkwardly-named Labour Relations (Regional Health Authorities Restructuring) Amendment Act, at the request of Health Care employers.
• Bill 27 radically changed the face of Health Care industrial relations in Alberta by:

a)   Removing the right to strike from thousands of union members in areas like Community Health, Mental Health and Extended Care;
b)   Forcing unions into run-off votes against each other, denying workers in smaller groups the right to choose the union they wanted to represent them;
c)   Tearing up dozens of signed collective agreements.

• The implementation of these sweeping changes was made the responsibility of the Alberta Labour Relations Board. In order to function, the Labour Relations Board must function as a neutral umpire in labour relations.
• In June, 2003 the AFL filed a Freedom of Information request with the ALRB, asking for any record of the Board's correspondence with the government, employers, or unions concerning Bill 27. We wanted to try to determine the nature and extent of employer influence on the drafting and implementation of the bill.
• The LRB responded to the request with a one-page refusal, declining to disclose even a single record. In justification, the Board cited three sections of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
• In the fall of 2003, health care unions and the AFL challenged the process in court, alleging that the conduct of the Board gave unions a reason to fear bias in its rulings. This allegation was supported by information from FOIP requests made to other parts of government.
• The court challenge was lost in court of Queen's Bench, and is now proceeding to the Court of Appeals.
• The AFL then proceeded to appeal the Board's decision to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
• In November 2005 the inquiry produced (possibly through an accidental release) several documents that seemed to confirm that the Board played an active part in the creation of Bill 27.
• On September 27, 2006, the Information Commissioner released his decision. Among other issues decided, the Commissioner rejected the ALRB argument that it had the right to withhold any and all records relating to advice given to Cabinet, including even the names of those giving advice and the dates on which it was given. The Commissioner has ordered the Board to "sever" many of the documents, withholding only those portions properly exempted by Section 24 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
• This would mean that the Board has to disclose:

a)   The names of those sending and receiving the documents.
b)   The dates on which the documents were sent.
c)   The subject matter lines in the emails or letters.

• The AFL hopes that the information received as a result of this decision may help to fill in some of the gaps in the Bill 27 story.
• The Commissioner also ruled that the ALRB had failed to meet its duty under FOIPPA, by improperly withholding documents, delaying the release of documents, and by failing to provide information as required by the Act.
• The Federation has called on the ALRB to adopt a set of protocols to prevent future incidences of real or perceived bias on the part of the Board. The protocols in question were drafted by Lorne Sossin, Associate Dean at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and Charles Smith of York University. Professor Sossin is an acknowledged expert in administrative law.
• The AFL is also asking ALRB Chair Mark Asbell to use the discretion granted him under the FOIPPA to release all the relevant documentation relating to Bill 27.

Human Resources and Employment Minister Mike Cardinal has subverted a longstanding agreement with the labour movement by appointing an individual with no connection to labour to the WCB Board to represent workers, says the Alberta Federation of Labour. The AFL has sent a letter to Cardinal demanding an explanation and that the appointment be suspended.

On September 13, Cabinet quietly appointed Richard Mirasty to the WCB Board of Directors to represent the interests of workers. Mr. Mirasty is a lawyer and professor in the University of Alberta's Law Faculty. The WCB Board consists of 9 members, three each representing the interests of employers, labour and the public.

"This is the first time in history, to our knowledge, that a non-labour person has been appointed to represent workers at the WCB," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "It is an unnecessary antagonism of the labour movement.

"It undermines a longstanding protocol with labour in two ways," McGowan notes. "First, we have always been consulted about labour appointments and given the opportunity to put forward nominees. Second, the appointees always have some connection with the labour movement, either as an elected officer or staff representative or other position.

"None of that happened this time. Cardinal made this appointment in secret and by ignoring the traditional process - which has worked very well over the years."

McGowan notes that his concern is not with the abilities of the individual in question. "I do not know Mr. Mirasty. He is probably a very capable person. The problem is that I - and no one else in the labour movement - has any clue who he is.

"We would have no difficulties if Mr. Mirasty was appointed to represent the interests of the public. Our concern is that he has no connection to the labour movement."

The AFL has sent a letter to Minister Cardinal demanding an explanation for his decision to subvert the traditional process. The letter also requests that Mirasty's appointment be suspended until such time as a vacancy occurs amongst public members, and that an appropriate labour representative be selected in the meantime.

"We are worried this sets a very ugly precedent," McGowan concludes. "What's next? Appointing the CEO of Wal-Mart to represent the interests of workers?"

- 30 -

For More Information:
Gil McGowan, AFL President  Tel: (780) 483-3021  Cell: (780) 218-9888

Labour Economic Monitor (Fall 2006)

The general picture of the Alberta economy is very positive: sources from the business press to Statistics Canada are celebrating the boom, and the data seem to bear them out. On the other hand, there are some serious questions about how much benefit average working Albertans are actually reaping from all this activity. Wages do not seem to be growing as fast as they should be, and inflation is eating up what gains workers do make.

So are we all getting rich? Apparently not. The story seems to be: huge profits for the corporate sector, and longer hours of work for employees. There's something wrong with this picture, and we will try to figure out what it is in the next edition of Labour Economic Monitor.

The AFL responded today to the announcement of a Multi-stakeholder Committee to examine oilsands development by questioning why labour is the only stakeholder group left off the 19-member committee.

"This group is going to make recommendations about the future pace and direction of oilsands development," says AFL President Gil McGowan. "It has business, environmental groups, local government, first nations and metis representative, but has completely shut out labour."

"Working people have as much stake in the direction of oilsands development as any other group in the province. Why are they ignoring the perspective of hundreds of thousands of Albertans?"

The Stakeholder Committee will lead public hearings and examine evidence to create recommendations for future steps on oilsands development. "Shutting out workers from this process is flabbergasting," says McGowan.

The AFL is writing a letter to the Ministers of Energy, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development urging the government to add labour representatives to the committee in time to fully participate in the discussions and deliberations.

"It is a basic issue of fairness," notes McGowan. "The oilsands are the most significant economic engine in Alberta at the present time, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Workers should have a say in what happens to that engine."

The AFL has advocated for a slowing down of oilsands development to allow government, industry, labour and local governments to better plan for long term prosperity. "The current pace of development is unsustainable. Our public infrastructure and the labour market cannot keep up to this reckless pace. We need better planning and a long term strategy for how to balance economic, social and environmental needs."

"We are hopeful the government will acknowledge their oversight and include the voice of working people on the committee," McGowan concludes.

- 30 -

For more information contact:

Gil McGowan, AFL President @ 780-218-9888 (cell)